Down To Just 3 Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed Whistleblower Bill

from the counting-down dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that WNYC's On the Media's attempt to out the Senator who put an anonymous block on a bill to protect whistleblowers, had narrowed down the list to just five Senators. Since then, two of the five remaining Senators -- David Vitter and Mitch McConnell have both said that they did not put the secret hold on the bill. So that leaves just three Senators, each of whom have been contacted multiple times and refuse to say. Here's OTM's summary:

Notes: 3-2-2011 – Have yet to make contact with Senator Kyl’s Press Secretary Ryan Patmintra. Several messages have been left with the office. A caller spoke to a staffer named Nat on 1-18-2011 who didn’t think Sen. Kyl was responsible, but could not confirm. Since 2-17-2011, three constituents have received the following letter in reply to inquiries about his role in killing the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act: “Thank you for contacting me about the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S.372) . The Senate passed S. 372 on Dec 14, 2010 and the House passed a different version of the legislation on Dec 22. With only hours left in the session, the Senate did not have sufficient time to review the House’s changes and reconcile the differences between the two bills. “

Notes: 3-2-2011 – Jeff Sessions aide Caroline explained to caller on 1-19-2011 that anonymous holds are 'anonymous' and that he is 'very private.' Subsequent calls have gotten similar responses. Have yet to get a response or make contact with Press Secretary Sarah Haley.

Notes: 3-2-2011 – Press Secretary Kyle Hines, as well as other staffers have repeatedly told callers that the Senator does not comment on Secret Holds. Hines has said "That's his policy - that's his right" "He just doesn't comment on them." He told caller he would follow up with the Senator on 2-22-2011, and got back to the caller to confirm that the Senator would not comment.

3-4-2011 - Senator Risch's office continues to refuse comment on the secret hold. Brad Hoaglun, Senator Risch's spokesman sent the following email: "Senator Risch's policy has been to not comment secret holds. Although the rules have changed for this Congress he is still holding firm to his policy as it pertains to the last Congress."

There are some claims that Senator Kyl indirectly admitted that he put the hold on the bill, but that may be reading too much into his statements. That's based on the statement (also included above) where he did suggest that there wasn't "sufficient time to review" the House's changes to the bill. Either way, supporters of the bill have pointed out that whether or not this is an admission, it's a completely bogus reason:

Senator Kyl's response to Arizonans, without further explanation, is woefully disingenuous, since the Senator had more than sufficient time to review the content of the bill. In fact, his office had approved the remaining legislation just weeks prior to this final vote.

No matter what, it appears that sooner or later it's going to be revealed who put the secret hold on the bill.

Re:

It is down to those three because a Senator would know that a lie told to constituents that can be proven to be a lie will come back to haunt them if the truth is ever revealed. Even if they consider such a lie to be minor or relatively unimportant, a political opponent would point out repeatedly that the liar is a scumbag who can be proven to have lied directly to voters and would prompt questions about what else he lied about. Even if the senators are otherwise idiots, they at least are politically talented and will avoid that situation if they can.

Re:

So protections for US citizens demand a "sober second thought" that requires a hold from an anonymous senator to kill the bill, but they haven't found time in 10 years to take a second look at the Patriot Act.

Re:

Yet you're probably not upset in the least that healthcare reform was passed in the blink of an eye, despite the bill being thousands of pages long and none of the Congressmen having read it all the way through, let alone analyzed it. Am I right?

Whistleblowers

Or it could have been one of the 13 Senators who left office after the end of the last Congress in December. Who really cares who killed the bill? The sponsors and supporters of the bill are using this parlor game as a diversionary tactic. They won't tell you the bill would have weakened current law in important respects had it been passed. Instead of enhancing rights it took away rights. Blaming some cowardly Senators who put a hold on a "whistleblower" bill might be fun and diverts attention from how pitiful the bill really was. We should be thanking the cowards for killing the bill and working for strong whistleblower reform that does not weaken existing rights.

great

Or it could have been one of the 13 Senators who left office after the end of the last Congress in December. Who really cares who killed the bill? The sponsors and supporters of the bill are using this parlor game as a diversionary tactic. They won't tell you the bill would have weakened current law in important respects had it been passed. Instead of enhancing rights it took away rights.windshield repair Newark

comm

The sponsors and supporters of the bill are using this parlor game as a diversionary tactic. They won't tell you the bill would have weakened current law in important respects had it been passed. Instead of enhancing rights it took away rights.

August 15, 2008, 10:28 AM — Proper use of Secure Socket Layer security is a mystery even to many virtual server administrators, but it seems to be mysterious even to the developers who build it into their products-whether they know it or not. Where To Find Coupons